Power to Centrists, Moderates and Common Sense Politics

Originally posted by SkyfloatingTax
Left: Tax-cuts for the poor!
Right: Tax-cuts for the rich!
Common Sense: Flat Tax for all

No thankyou. I like the progressive taxation system we have here in the UK.

Abortion
Left: Yes to choice
Right: Yes to Life
Common Sense: We want to limit abortion as much as possible but there must be some exceptions.

Here in the UK your 'common sense' idea is generally not considered common sense at all.

Immigration
Left: Let em all in
Right: Let none of em in
Common Sense: Let some of em in

Agreed.

Terrorism

Left: Be nice to the freedom fighters!
Right: Kill em all those scum!
Common Sense: Try diplomacy first. If that doesnt work, kick ass.

Agreed.

Healthcare

Left: Socialized Healthcare
Right: No socialized Healthcare
Common Sense: Anything can be a cure or poison, depending on dose.
We can afford a little bit of this.

I am entirely in favour of continuing our NHS.

Guns

Left: Get rid of them!
Right: Keep them!
Common Sense: Keep them but add I.D./Fingerprints with purchase

Agreed actually, although I'd include other tests such as a mandatory 'shooter's license' (similar to a driver's license) and perhaps even a mental
health examination. This would still represent a significant liberalisation of current UK firearms laws.

Agreed, since of course responsible management and planning of resources (and the earth in general) is usually good for Humanity in the long run.

Government

Left: Big Goverment
Right: Small Government
Common-Sense: Medium Sized Government

Agreed more or less. Leaning towards 'small government' for social issues whilst maintaining a similar level of government involvemnt in the
economy.

Economy

Left: Help the poor!
Right: Help Corporations - they produce our wealth!
Common Sense: Help the middle class

Somewhat simplistic, a good balance must be struck for a healthy economy.

Energy

Left: Get Alternatives to Oil and Nuclear Power!
Right: Get Oil and Nuclear Power!
Common Sense: Get Oil, Nuclear Power AND alternatives to them
to become less dependent on one or two.

I'd like to see greater development of nuclear and alternative energies and a gradual phasing out of fossil fuels.

Civil Rights

Left: More rights for minorities!
Right: Minorities musnt impose on the majority!
Common Sense: Civil Rights for All

Agreed.

The moderates of both parties need to regain power and momentum.

The Democrats as a whole seem to be quite moderate when compared to most of the rest of the developed world.

Anyway, a good thread and I generally agree with your overall outlook on politics, although as you see above I don't agree with some of the specifics
(which I would probably put down to cultural differences as much as anything else).

Now... lets not play the same game the other political hacks play, and pretend that anyone who thinks differently than us is the opposite of sane.
There are crazy moderates too, and plenty of extremists who are very sane. Wrong (in our centrist opinions) is not the same as crazy.

Just one nit I have to pick...

"Left: Tax-cuts for the poor!
Right: Tax-cuts for the rich!
Common Sense: Flat Tax for al"

Problem is... a flat tax is the same as a giant tax cut for the waelthy, and a giant tax increase for the poor. To make it flat, you'd have to raise
the lowest rates MUCH higher, and that would lower the higher rates much lower. Not only is that just plain wrong from the vast majority's
perspective (polling is very clear that the public supports progressive taxation), but it has zero chances of passing. Who's going to vote to
drastically raise taxes on lower income people?

"The tone between the parties needs to be more civil. The moderates of both parties need to regain power and momentum"

The two major parties are far beyond saving from a moderate's perspective. They are both getting more extreme every year. The GOP is ahead on the
extremeness, but the dems are working to catch up, which you can see if you pay attention to the very Tea Party-esque stuff coming from the labor and
netroots types lately.

They're too far gone... we need to break off and start an opposition of centrists and moderates from both sides joining together against both.

"Are there ANY moderate minded people out there at all..."

Polling shows there are more people in the center of the political spectrum on every issue than there are at the extremes. There are tons of us...
we're just not organized at all... although that is starting to change.

"Oreilly is a moderate. Ive heard him voice his belief in global warming, gun control, pro-choice among other things. You must be wearing leftist
glasses to see no Moderate Republicans."

O'Reilly is no moderate, he's just not an extreme conservative. There aren't just moderates and extremists, there is a whole range. He's more a
rank and file type conservative. David Frum is a great example of a moderate conservative.

"Viewing from an ideology is like viewing through distortion-glasses. Good to know there are others out there."

You could have taken these words right out of my mouth. Rigid ideologues are by far the worst element in politics. There is no centrist ideology.
Centrists take a look at the issues on their own, and just so happen to usually come to similar conclusions. Funny how when you take ideology out,
most people end up coming to similar conclusions.

I've been reading and blogging about this for a long time... if you agree with the above stuff, you'll probably dig our blog:

Banning abortion would have the same effect as the war on drugs or anything else the state has tried to legislate away.

I agree, I never said anything about banning abortion. It is none of the governments business.

It's not his property, he has no right to prevent her from having an abortion. He can try to convince her not to, but in the end it's her choice.

Personal property rights and abortion have nothing to do with each other. We cannot look at human life as being equal to a house, or a car! When you
do......genocide!

They have no right to tell her what to and what not to do with her body.

True, but when she gives consent for sexual intercourse I believe she gives up that right to complete control over her body if she becomes pregnant.
She gave up that control when she had sex.

If a man gets her pregnant, he has to give up a part of his paycheck for child support, correct? As he should! Should that man have a choice to opt
out of supporting a child if she does not abort it? See that slippery slope you are creating?

When a woman can get pregnant without the assistance of a man, then I will take your points into consideration. Until then, it's invalid.

Well, you can lead by example or something. I don't know and I really don't care. In a free society you don't have to agree with abortion, but you
can't run to the govt and have them make laws, rules, regulations, etc just to fit your pow.

This really has nothing to do with government. They have no business regulating something like this. Local communities should group together and
decide what is acceptable in their neigborhoods.

Freedom doesn't work that way.

You're right, it doesn't. Freedom is not telling a father that his child may be aborted becuase the woman has decided to do so.
Freedom is not equating property rights and the irresponsible act of abortion. Silly comparison.

We have to remember that abortion is not just a woman's issue. It involves many more people and society as a whole. Should government be involved? NO!
Should the community? Yes!

There are some things that are simply wrong.....this is one of them issues.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Centrists are often ridiculed as boring, spineless or without principle.

Or being consistently "on the fence". I get this all the time: "Pick a side! Take a stand"! What they don't know is that I HAVE taken a stand. It
just doesn't fit into one extreme or the other.

I agree with you completely. Compromise isn't sexy. Centrist implies weakness to so many because if you don't join a "team", you're an outcast.
It's just not exciting. And with modern people's short attention span, there needs to be fireworks to excite people. The left/right divide provides
those fireworks that the masses crave.

I freely admit to being slightly right of center, though not to the extreme that some go to. But I'm not blind to the silliness that both the left
and right are capable of spewing given half a chance, and a suitable forum...

So, I suppose you could call me a moderately right winged extremist...

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Humans without rights can be murdered at anybody's convenience.

The words "murder" and "killing" are overused by the left and right to smear the other side. Far-Leftists tend to use it for soldiers who are
defending their country, Far-Rightists tend to use it for abortion. Strictly speaking, both are killings but in both cases the respective sides can
list many reasons for doing so.

I say we either outlaw both abortion and war or we allow just a little bit of both in exceptional cases. Id prefer the exceptional-cases thing. A
system that does not grant some exceptions on controversial subjects tends to be totalitarian.

Personal property rights and abortion have nothing to do with each other. We cannot look at human life as being equal to a house, or a car! When you
do......genocide!

If she owns her body it's her property, to force her to carry a fetus effectively makes her a slave. If the govmint or the father of the fetus has
the authority to force her to carry a fetus at gun point she is no longer a self owner, but a slave.

True, but when she gives consent for sexual intercourse I believe she gives up that right to complete control over her body if she becomes pregnant.
She gave up that control when she had sex.

Well, you believe wrong then. What if she was using protection and it did not work? Or lets say the ``father`` wants her to have an abortion too? What
if both agree that abortion is the solution? Now it's ``two``, against ``one to be`` -- what happens now?

If a man gets her pregnant, he has to give up a part of his paycheck for child support, correct? As he should! Should that man have a choice to opt
out of supporting a child if she does not abort it? See that slippery slope you are creating?

I'm not creating a ``slippery slope``, you are. I never said a man should be ``forced`` to take care of a child that he doesn't want to. Most men
don't pay child support anyway, so IMO a lot of the male fetus rights arguments are garbage to begin with.

When a woman can get pregnant without the assistance of a man, then I will take your points into consideration. Until then, it's invalid.

Women can get pregnant without men

This really has nothing to do with government. They have no business regulating something like this. Local communities should group together and
decide what is acceptable in their neigborhoods.

That sounds collectivist to me. How would a ``community`` regulate and stop women from getting abortions?

You're right, it doesn't. Freedom is not telling a father that his child may be aborted becuase the woman has decided to do so.
Freedom is not equating property rights and the irresponsible act of abortion. Silly comparison.

That is freedom, to take that ``choice`` away would instantly make her a ``slave`` to the state or to the man that got her pregnant. It's not a
``silly comparison`` at all, if a person owns his/her body it's their property, what makes you think you have a right to tell someone else what to do
with their body?

We have to remember that abortion is not just a woman's issue. It involves many more people and society as a whole. Should government be involved?
NO! Should the community? Yes!

You're just making stuff up. How does a women getting an abortion in the U.K affect me here in Wash. D.C? Again I will ask how would a community stop
women from getting abortions?

There are some things that are simply wrong.....this is one of them issues.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
We should all be careful to distinguish moderate sensibilities from compromise. Compromise is often touted as some form of political mastery, and as
far as politics go, perhaps it is, but more to the point, perhaps politics has no place in issues of law.

The woman who accepted Solomon's compromise could be seen as a "moderate", and the woman who rejected the compromise, to the point of willingly
surrendering her claim of motherhood for the sake of the child's safety, could be seen as an extremist. Under this analogy, Solomon chose the
extremist as the better parent. Going down the middle of the road on certain issues is hardly prudent.

Every single one of the positions voiced in the opening post was gained by deep consideration, not by compromise. Many years I didnt even realize that
these positions were what is called "moderate". Compromise sounds like something one does against ones own sense of what is right.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
Anyway, a good thread and I generally agree with your overall outlook on politics, although as you see above I don't agree with some of the specifics
(which I would probably put down to cultural differences as much as anything else).

You may not agree with me, but contrary to the extremists who have hijacked politics, your disagreement is presented in a friendly tone and therefore
easy to digest and take for considering.

They're too far gone... we need to break off and start an opposition of centrists and moderates from both sides joining together against both.

I agree with anything that strengthens moderates.

Polling shows there are more people in the center of the political spectrum on every issue than there are at the extremes. There are tons of us...
we're just not organized at all... although that is starting to change.

Yes. The actual populace is centrist, they're just not loud and pushy enough to be heard. They are the fair-minded folks who are always quiet about
things while the fanatics take up all the airtime.

You could have taken these words right out of my mouth. Rigid ideologues are by far the worst element in politics. There is no centrist ideology.
Centrists take a look at the issues on their own, and just so happen to usually come to similar conclusions. Funny how when you take ideology out,
most people end up coming to similar conclusions.

Yes! Thats it! When you remove the ideology and just pragmatically look at what needs to be done, the divide is not that big.

Originally posted by SolomonKleinsmith
Problem is... a flat tax is the same as a giant tax cut for the waelthy, and a giant tax increase for the poor. To make it flat, you'd have to raise
the lowest rates MUCH higher, and that would lower the higher rates much lower. Not only is that just plain wrong from the vast majority's perspective
(polling is very clear that the public supports progressive taxation), but it has zero chances of passing. Who's going to vote to drastically raise
taxes on lower income people?

In my system there would be no increase of the lower classes taxes but to level it out to flat tax, a decrease of the upper classes taxes. I
understand thats unpopular and perhaps not exactly "centrist", but there you go.

Im not a big believer in tax, I prefer when wealthy corporations practice philanthropy and giving-to-community as they see fit.

The problem with the "compromise" position is that it's defined by the two extremes it seeks to moderate, does it not ? In itself, the middle way
is directionless. Just talk, little action. Emotionless, joyless, insipid nothingness.

Originally posted by Niall197
The problem with the "compromise" position is that it's defined by the two extremes it seeks to moderate, does it not ? In itself, the middle way
is directionless. Just talk, little action. Emotionless, joyless, insipid nothingness.

Commonsense politics ? That's the European Union.

How terribly inspiring.

The moderate has specific positions on specific topics just as the leftist and the rightist does. The popular and common idea of "emotionless,
joyless" is exactly the misconception we'd love to overcome.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In this circus of extreme partisanship and political propaganda the voice of the Moderate, the Centrist, the Rational often goes unheard and
unsupported. Indeed most of the Moderate threads I make dont even get past page one. Do you support extremism or do you support sanity? From a common
sense Moderate view, running society is pretty simple...

Tax

Left: Tax-cuts for the poor!
Right: Tax-cuts for the rich!
Common Sense: Flat Tax for all

Poor people don't pay income tax, and they receive truckloads of govt benefits. I can already tell which way this thread is
going.

Abortion

Left: Yes to choice
Right: Yes to Life
Common Sense: We want to limit abortion as much as possible but there must be some exceptions.

I don't know a single "Right" person who says no abortions no matter what the scenario. And I know a lot of them.

Immigration
Left: Let em all in
Right: Let none of em in
Common Sense: Let some of em in

Let some of them in is exactly what the "Right" position is. We don't want to stop all immigration, just the illegals flooding over
the Mexican border by the millions. All the normal channels to enter the country are intact.

Terrorism

Left: Be nice to the freedom fighters!
Right: Kill em all those scum!
Common Sense: Try diplomacy first. If that doesnt work, kick ass.

Seriously, have no idea where you get your info on "Right" and terrorism. I don't know anyone who wants to be in 4 wars in the Middle
East.

Healthcare

Left: Socialized Healthcare
Right: No socialized Healthcare
Common Sense: Anything can be a cure or poison, depending on dose.
We can afford a little bit of this.

No plan that allows the govt to oversee or have a say in what healthcare you receive. Firm stance, no ifs ands or buts. If they come up
with a plan that allows doctors and hospitals full oversight then fine. But the current Obamacare plan has very tight govt restrictions.

Guns

Left: Get rid of them!
Right: Keep them!
Common Sense: Keep them but add I.D./Fingerprints with purchase

Do you have any idea how many gun restriction laws there are? Federal and the states? There are MORE than enough gun laws. Criminals
will always find a way to get guns. Either by stealing them or by the govt ATF losing them in Mexico.

Common sense is mandating a $50 green energy light bulb? No, common sense is to dril the oil in the USA. If lefties are so worried
about the earth why do I never see anyone protest or speak up about the oil drilling occurring IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY IN THE FRICKEN
WORLD?

Government

Left: Big Goverment
Right: Small Government
Common-Sense: Medium Sized Government

Eh.. agree. But I will always defer to the group with smaller govt.

Economy

Left: Help the poor!
Right: Help Corporations - they produce our wealth!
Common Sense: Help the middle class

With the exception of fair labor & monopoly laws the govt should stay out of business and class warfare.

Energy

Left: Get Alternatives to Oil and Nuclear Power!
Right: Get Oil and Nuclear Power!
Common Sense: Get Oil, Nuclear Power AND alternatives to them
to become less dependent on one or two.

Once again I don't know anyone on the right who isn't in agreement with alternative fuels. But in the mean time it's assanine to not
increase oil and nuclear power.

Civil Rights

Left: More rights for minorities!
Right: Minorities musnt impose on the majority!
Common Sense: Civil Rights for All

The laws concerning the rights of people in the USA are fine and don't need changed. People will always discrimnate no matter what the
laws or govt are. The govt has more important issues to focus on.

There's a whole lot more but you get the picture. Do these left/right positions sound simplistic or stereotype to you? Well, I didnt invent them.
Read this Forum and you`ll find these anti-common-sense positions all over the place. Extremism is not good for this country. Radicalism is what is
bringing the country down. The tone between the parties needs to be more civil. The moderates of both parties need to regain power and momentum.

But where's the passion in that ? "Something you'd like to overcome". That's the language of the bureaucrat, not of someone driven to make change
or to influence others.

The middle way is all fine and dandy when it comes to traffic management & refuse collection, it's fine for low level community decisions where
tinkering about at the margins is just about all you can do.

But the middle way lacks the virility required for the mighty ideological conflicts which great nations face, even in peacetime. And it's too
cumbersome a principal with which to lead. There's little clarity. There's always nuances and emphasis to diplomatically tip your toes around.

And the middle way is unsuited to decisions where morality is centre stage & where issues are starkly defined in terms of good and evil. A crafty
wordsmith, of whom there are many on ATS, can twist most issues of our age into one of morals. That's why the centrist gets trampled on by the
stampede.

I share your disappointment when thoughtful OP's and their well reasoned threads just disappear off the page, with little comment from others. That
is a genuine shame, for their threads are sometimes little gems amongst garnets.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.